§ 3.44 p.m.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the disclosure of information in Cabinet papers to the author of the article in the magazine New Society about the child benefit scheme.
"I should first inform the House of the result of the investigation carried out by Sir Douglas Allen and will outline the further action that is being taken.
"Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry has been very thorough. It has included interviews with Ministers and with all Political Advisers who had access. All civil servants who had access, including those concerned solely with the custody and handling of the relevant material, have also been interviewed. Sir Douglas Allen has also followed up all the suggestions and leads put to him by those who have been interviewed and most of those that have appeared in the Press. He also interviewed Mr. Frank Field, the author of the article, who refused to disclose the source of his information.
"As I informed the House earlier, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the quotations in the New Society article. The manner of the disclosure is however more doubtful. Thus while some of the quotations are accurate, others contain minor textual errors. The article was also wrong in saying 880 that there was a meeting of the Cabinet on 4th May. Sir Douglas Allen considers that the likely explanation is that the author of the article did not possess a copy of the papers from which he quoted, but that someone who had access to them made extensive and possibly rapid notes from them which were subsequently handed over.
"Sir Douglas Allen concentrated his inquiry on those who had access to the Limited Circulation Annex recording the discussion which the Cabinet had on 6th May. This record falls into a category which is given a restricted circulation and very strict rules exist for their handling. Departments are not permitted to copy them, in whole or in part. They are not to be sent to individuals in a Department but must be read, on a strict "need to know" basis, only in the Private Office concerned. In the case of this particular Limited Circulation Annex 34 copies were issued and it was hoped that by concentrating the investigation on it the scope of the inquiry could be focused on a relatively few people. Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry revealed however that the strict procedures for handling this document were not fully observed by all Departments. Three Departments copied it and in others the original document was shown to individuals outside the Private Office concerned. This failure to observe the rules regrettably made the task of identifying the sources of the disclosure more difficult by increasing the range of access and thus the number of people involved. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to show that this failure to observe the proper procedures was itself responsible for the disclosure.
"I have to inform the House that despite his very thorough inquiries Sir Douglas Allen has been unable to discover the source of this leak.
"The problem of leaks is by no means new and it would be misleading to pretend otherwise. They have taken place for many years. They are part of the enduring relationship between Governments and the Press in the course of which the interests of the two parties will sometimes be different. What was disturbing about the disclosure to the author of the New 881 Society article was that it involved the unauthorised passing over of extracts from the papers of the Cabinet itself, which the recipients had formally undertaken not to do. This is an abuse of trust which cannot be in the public interest ; and it is in a different order of gravity from some of the stories and allegations which have been made about the disclosure of some relatively innocuous documents.
"The House will recall that I invited whoever was responsible to come forward to say so. He or she has not done this, with the result that this leaves a large number of persons under suspicion, including one or two whose names have been published in the Press without supporting evidence. I regret this very much.
"The following further action is therefore being taken.
"First, one or two matters came to Sir Douglas Allen's attention which could not be wholly explained. I have therefore decided after consultation with the Attorney-General to invite the police to carry out an investigation into these matters and into any other material in Sir Douglas Allen's report which may appear to them to justify further probing.
"This investigation will be directed towards discovering who was responsible for the disclosure. I informed the Attorney-General of this decision and he has considered the matter. He informs me that he has had regard to all the relevant factors, including Mr. Field's voluntary admission, and he authorises me to say that he is informing Mr. Field that he will not be prosecuted in respect of any offence under the Official Secrets Act arising out of this matter. He is giving the same undertaking to those concerned with the publication of the article in New Society.
"Secondly, there is the matter of the procedures for handling Cabinet documents. As an immediate measure I am issuing fresh directions that the existing rules are to be scrupulously observed. I think however that the rules themselves should be examined by a small Committee of Privy Counsellors. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Houghton of Sowerby has agreed to be chairman of this body 882 and that the other members will be my right honourable friend the Member for Kilmarnock and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Grantham.
"Finally, this episode has raised once again the question whether the present definition and classification of official secrets and the arrangements for their protection are right. This is ground that has already been covered by the Franks Report which the Government have been considering. The Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible for reforming the Official Secrets Act in a way which will make its coverage both more limited and more effective.
"The House will be informed of the result of these further steps."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
§ 3.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, we thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement made in another place. In the course of two weeks, Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry appears to have discovered certain breaches of the rules but has thrown no light on how in this case extracts from recent Cabinet documents were published. This situation must remain most unsatisfactory, since information in this category could have been on confidential defence or other matters involving national security.
We think it right that the police should be asked to come in and carry out investigations; and indeed we suggested this two weeks ago from this Bench. It is very distirbing that three Departments should have transgressed against the rules regarding the copying of Cabinet documents. It is surely right that the proposed Committee of Privy Counsellors should examine the present rules, and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is to be in the chair. Presumably they will make recommendations about these rules, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could tell us whether it is proposed that a report from them should be published or given in your Lordships' House.
There are clearly differences of view of what subjects should be strictly confidential, concerning not only Cabinet papers but other documents. The noble 883 and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has repeated the Statement which, towards the end of it, states that the whole question of the Official Secrets Act will he considered. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us when this is likely to be ? I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Parliamentary programme is somewhat congested. For the moment, while the rules exist, and unless or until they are authoritatively changed, they must surely be observed: and if the present system of free and frank discussion within the Cabinet is to continue, then Cabinet documents must be safely protected.
The next stage appears to be this police investigation, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell us when we might expect a further report —if necessary an interim one —in respect of the police inquiry and whether this will be before the Summer Recess.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and not least, as the Prime Minister has said, because of the suspicion which still hangs over a number of people, most of whom are undoubtedly innocent.
We welcome the setting up of a committee of Privy Counsellors to examine the rules, and I hope that the principle will be accepted, so far as the review of the Official Secrets Act is concerned, that the fewer documents that are classified, the better. But, once they are classified, no-one should be allowed to use his discretion about whether or not confidentiality is to be maintained. I believe this is the kernal of the matter. This is not open Government, to leak Cabinet secrets: it is anarchy.
§ 3.57 p.m.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I must put one question to him. Obviously as the noble, Lord, Lord Byers, has just said, a number of people, most of whom are wholly innocent of any breach of trust, are put under suspicion. What I want to put to the noble and learned Lord is this: There are three categories of person who 884 will have had access to these documents. One covers members of the Cabinet; one covers their political advisers and one covers career civil servants. Will the terms of reference of the Committee of Privy Counsellors entitle them to investigate the whole policy regarding the employment of political advisers with access to secret documents, since these people are bound neither by the career obligations of the civil servants nor by the oath of the Privy Counsellors?
§ 3.58 p.m.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I understand the practice is for me to reply to Front-Bench questions before dealing with anything else, even when there are two questions from a single Front-Bench. I am grateful for the general response of noble Lords to the Statement that has been made in underlining the crucial importance of maintaining security, secrecy and protection of Cabinet documents. Government would be intolerable if that became an open sieve. The date of publication of the report of the Privy Counsellors' committee will depend on when their inquiry is completed. I think they will be conscious of the sense of importance and urgency attached to the matter. I doubt very much, if I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, whether the point that he raised would reasonably come within the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry; but no doubt that is a matter we can look into when the precise terms of reference are determined.
The reform of the Official Secrets Act, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement, has been under the consideration of the Government since the Franks Committee reported. All I can say at this stage is to repeat what he has said already: that the Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible. Part of this consideration, I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will be a review of the classification of documents because over-classification merely weakens the shield of security, and the criminal law should be directed to the areas where the protection of the public interest is most required.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked whether and when an interim 885 report would be published by the police. That is certainly a suggestion that will be considered. As noble Lords have said, as the reputation of a large number of people are to some extent at stake —in the sense that all who have had connection with this matter may be deemed to be under suspicion —it is important that there should be speedy consideration of this matter. But if the interim report seems helpful and in the public interest, that will be forthcoming.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this question? In the course of his Statement he referred to Mr. Field, who was involved either by writing about this classified document or by providing the information. But he also mentioned that the Attorney-General, after consultation — I am open to correction — had decided to inform Mr. Field that he would not be prosecuted. I seem to have a recollection of a case several years ago when a matter arising out of the Official Secrets Act was under review, and the person who refused to disclose information was prosecuted. Can we be told the reason why Mr. Field is to be immune if it is discovered — as, apparently, it has already been — that he was involved by providing the information?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Mr. Field has, of course, frankly admitted that he was the author of the article and it may well be that that was one of the factors which my honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General had in mind. It is his decision that there should be a grant of immunity from prosecution. No other Minister has made that decision and I cannot probe it further, except that, presumably, he came to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute and I assume that that is why his decision was made. But I cannot take that matter further. It is strictly a matter within the responsibility of the Attorney-General.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask this further question? Could this not be a matter of Privilege brought before the Speaker of another place, and action taken accordingly?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the question of breach of Parliamentary Privilege is an entirely different matter. This has been considered within the context of the Official Secrets Act, and in so far as it raised a matter of Parliamentary Privilege it would be the Privilege of another place and not of your Lordships' House.
§ Lord GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor take it into account —and, certainly, my noble friend Lord Shinwell will —that this decision which he has announced, and which he says he cannot probe, raises uncomfortable memories of the Campbell case long years ago? It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot probe it further, but will he take it that some of us who are getting on in our years remember the sad outcome of the intervention of, I think, Sir Patrick Hastings who decided that somebody should be immune from prosecution? I share my noble friend's concern about anybody being given a guarantee that he is immune from prosecution, having admitted that he had received papers which he should not have received from a source which he refused to reveal. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor please to convey to his colleagues that this disturbs many of us, who feel that proper behaviour in public by those officers of the Cabinet responsible for the enforcement of the law is essential for the maintenance of a democracy.
May I now ask a second question which bothers me also? I could not understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dismissed so out of hand the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, because I simply cannot think other than that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put his finger right on the button. Civil servants are one thing, and, in my day, if one took personal assistants or advisers into the office it was required that they should be admitted to the Service. This happened to me both in the Home Service and in the Foreign Service. If the Service would not admit them, then one did not have them. We now have —if your Lordships will forgive me —a bastard system under which Ministers have advisers who are not admitted to the Service, who see all the papers and who do not owe any 887 allegiance anywhere, except to those to whom they feel themselves tied. I happen to feel that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put his finger right on the button of something that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, should in fact be going into.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, on the latter point which the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has raised, of course political advisers are as much subject to the Official Secrets Act as anyone else who has access to Cabinet and secret documents, and are similarly bound by all the sanctions of the law in regard to them. The other matter which the noble Lord raised is something with which, if I may say so, I had reasonable familiarity in my six years as Attorney-General. One has, of course, to be scrupulously careful in Government that no pressure is brought to bear upon the Attorney-General in the making of his decisions. If my memory serves me right what was complained of or alleged, which would be a more accurate word to describe what happened, was that Sir Patrick Hastings, as Attorney-General, having decided to launch a prosecution was made subject to Cabinet pressure and a Cabinet decision to withdraw the prosecution. That, at any rate, is what was alleged and, of course, it lost the then Labour Government a General Election. I am not going into the historical merits and whether that brief synopsis accurately describes what took place, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that there has been no pressure, no interference with the Attorney-General, in this decision. The basic principle that all Attorney-Generals have applied —certainly, within my recollection and knowledge of them — is whether a prosecution would be in the public interest, and I have little doubt that in this case the present Attorney-General has come to the conclusion that it would not be.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I think he has put his finger right on the essential point of comparison between this case and the Campbell case? At the time of the Campbell case in 1924, I was in close association with Sir Patrick Hastings and with the Prime Minister of that day in a journalistic and Party-journalistic capacity. It is my recollection that the wheels of prosecution had 888 been starting to revolve, and the Attorney-General then cancelled and stopped the whole proceedings, which is quite a different matter from deciding in advance not to take proceedings.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, there are precedents for the grant of immunity, and my last and most immediate recollection of the grant of immunity from prosecution, which is often done to facilitate inquiries, was during the term of Office of the last Conservative Administration, when it was decided in relation to the inquiry into the Vehicle and General Insurance Company to grant immunity from prosecution to the person responsible for the leakage of information from the Department of Trade and Industry. There, I have no doubt activated by the same principle of the public interest, the Conservative Attorney-General decided to grant immunity.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, did the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say, in response to the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there would be an opportunity of discussing the terms of reference of the inquiry, and of the conditions under which it operates, in a debate in this House? Also, may I say in a single sentence that the noble Lord who spoke last was quite correct, and in the Campbell case there was a prosecution which was withdrawn. It was unfortunate that the gifted advocate who was then Attorney-General had little political experience and gave all the wrong reasons for his action.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am not going to pursue further an inquest into the misfortunes of Sir Patrick Hastings, but may I point out to my noble friend Lord Hale that I did not say I was proposing that we should have a debate on the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry. There will be discussions between the Government and the members of the committee as to the most convenient and appropriate range of their inquiry which, as I have said, will be directed to examining the existing rules relating to the handling of Cabinet documents. Frankly, this does not seem to me to call for a wide-ranging debate. That is the purpose of the inquiry and it is a useful purpose, and I have little doubt that those who are charged with conducting the inquiry will do their job effectively.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, may I not press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about this matter? This leak was of a size which the Statement virtually admits was of unprecedented gravity, although previous leaks have occurred. Admittedly not only political advisers but everybody else is bound by the terms of the Official Secrets Act. Here, though, we have a novel situation of great gravity. The new factor which has been introduced into public security by the present Government is the appointment of political advisers. Will not the noble and learned Lord seriously bring it to the attention of his colleagues that if the inquiry by Privy Counsellors does not include this new factor within its terms of reference, in the eyes of the public, their efforts will be entirely valueless?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I greatly doubt that mournful conclusion which the noble and learned Lord has reached and I am not quite sure that the slight implication, that guilt points necessarily towards political advisers in this matter, is wholly justified. Perhaps that implication was not intended. However, it is very important that the further inquiry into the matter by the police should not be trammelled by previous unfounded suspicion without full examination of the facts. I agree, of course, that there is room for discussion as to the role of political advisers in Government. It would be an interesting and important subject for debate and if the usual channels can arrange it and it is thought to be appropriate, no doubt a debate can be held. However, the remit of the Committee of Privy Counsellors will be the practical one of protecting, by appropriate rules, the handling, and the procedures for handling Cabinet documents.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, first may I disclaim any connection with the Campbell case! We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having dealt with a wide range of questions, but I think that he misunderstood my first question about the Committee of Privy Counsellors. I did not ask about the timing of the inquiry: I asked whether it is intended that its report should be made public.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am not in a position at the moment to answer that question. It depends upon what is contained in the report and on the degree of confidentiality that will be involved. As there will he a recommendation about an improvement in procedures, prima facie it may well be that it will be thought right to publish the report. However, as the whole object of the exercise is to increase the security of Cabinet documents it might be very inexpedient indeed to give publicity to the methods of protecting that security. Therefore I will preserve what I am pleased to call an open mind on this matter. At any rate, I can assure noble Lords that it is not a closed book.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, I hope that there will be no leak during the course of the inquiry. We have been dealing with this Statement for 30 minutes, so perhaps it is now time to move on.